BRAȘOVăCOUNTYăHISTORYăMUSEUM

MUSEUMăOFăBR ILA

The Thracians and their Neighbors in

the Bronze and Iron Ages
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 12TH INTERNATIONAL
CONGRESS OF THRACOLOGY

TÂRGOVIȘTEă
TH
10 -14TH SEPTEMBER 2013

“Necropolises, Cult places, Religion, Mythology”

- Volume II -

Editorial Board
ValeriuăSîrbuăandăRaduăȘtef nescu

MUZEULăBR ILEIăăăăăă EDITURA ISTROS

BRAȘOV
2013
 SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE BORDERS BETWEEN
THE BRONZE AGE CULTURAL GROUPS IN THE REGION
OF THE WEST MORAVA VALLEY, CENTRAL SERBIA

KКtКrТnК DmТtrovТć (ČКčКk – Serbia),

MКrТjК LjuštТnК (Belgrade – Serbia)

Key words: Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age, Central Serbia, Western Serbia,
transitional area, achaeological cultures, funerary practice.
Abstract: The region of the West Morava valley, central Serbia, is of particular interest for the research of the
Bronze Age cultural phenomena. Results of archaeological research of a number of sites indicated that this
region represented the transitional territory between already defined cultural groups which existed in the wider
territory of Serbia to the south of the rivers Sava and Danube. Many of these groups are mainly known thanks to
the well preserved remains of burials in contrast to the poorly investigated settlements. Determination of the
cultural groups was based on the main characteristics which usually refer to the cemetery type (mounds vs. flat
necropolises), shape of the grave construction, treatment of bodily remains of the deceased (inhumation vs.
cremation), stylistic and typological analysis as well as distribution of grave goods.

Introduction
Archaeological excavations of the Central Balkans provided a solid basis for
determination of several cultural groups which developed on the territory of Serbia during the
Bronze Age, despite uneven number of explored settlements and necropolises. Speaking in
terms of cultural groups, we follow the concept stating that political territories were marked
not only by differences in pottery styles, but in funerary practices, reflecting political entities
generally extending in a diameter of 100-200 km (cf. Kristiansen and Larsson 2005, p. 125).
RespeМtТng traНТtТonal SerbТan nomenМlature for preСТstorв (Мf. 1973; GarašanТn
1983a; GarašanТn 1983b; GarašanТn 1983М), аe kept tСe term cultural group to some extent,
although in most of the cases it is the synonym for archaeological culture, i.e. it is not
subordinated to any larger cultural entity.
Concept of archaeological culture has been the scene of conflict between different
theoretical regimes in the history of archaeology and anthropology. Historically speaking,
such debates are indicators of vital and polemical strength of the disciplines. They have often
been placed in the frames of conceptual strategy of opposites, and during the years a number
of systems and theoretical frameworks have been created (Jones 2004; Kristiansen 1998, Fig.
14; Kristiansen 2004, p. 259-278). If an assemblage of items of various types, which are
tightly associated and which cover whole range of human activities, consistently repeats
inside limited area and given period (i.e. if it has limited distribution in space and time), it can
be defined as a culture and taken as characteristic for certain human society (cf. Bray and
Trump 1982, p. 25; Renfrew and Bahn 2004, p. 118). Such a wide definition of culture,
postulated as early as 1920s by V. G. Childe, implies that in that case immaterial
characteristics of a culture are equally important as material ones, even though only material
testimony can be archaeologically re-established. W. Bray and D. Trump (Bray and Trump
1982, p. 25, 70) describe prehistory as a building whose construction elements are prehistoric
cultures. It must be admitted that the elements are not as solid as we want them to be.
Examples from historic times or ethnography show that equalisation of culture with society is
not perfect, although it is the best archaeologists can gain without help from other disciplines.
Battles over nature of material culture were connected with cyclical changes in dominant
theoretical frames of archaeology. With time it became clear that pairs of notions used in
opposites (e.g. idealism vs. materialism, normative ideas vs. social function, active thinking
vs. passive symbols...) probably referred to complementary properties of culture and society.
During 1990s and at the turn of the century such a comprehension led to increased interest to
cope with the central property of archaeological testimony – material culture (Kristiansen
2004, p. 259-260).
The premise that there is a difference in ceramic style, both in the sense of separation
of one culture from the others and inside one cultural entity (regional variants and/or
chronological categories), is binding: style has to be defined. Style is a complex concept used
in a number of disciplines and it is difficult to be defined. This term is most frequently used
in art and literature, where it has two primary meanings: means of expression (unlike the
content or expressed ideas), and diversity, originality and character of the expression. Still, in
archaeology and anthropology, specially in pottery studies, this separation of content and
production (or technique) in definitions of style is not preserved (Rice 2005, p. 244).
ArМСaeologТsts anН antСropologТsts НefТne “stвlТstТМ гones” as spatТal unТts representeН bв
common ways of production and decoration of artefacts (Renfrew and Bahn 2004, p. 586). It
is obvious that archaeologists and anthropologists use the term style in the sense of decorative
style, with meaning of surface treatment and embellishment of an object. Other elements of
style, such as production techniques, are important, too, but they still have not been
systematically researched in pottery studies. As P. Rice correctly noticed (Rice 2005, p. 245),
styles, specially pottery styles, have for archaeologists long been important for reconstruction
of historical and cultural relations of the people settling archaeological sites.
In the case of western Serbia, many of the Bronze Age cultural groups are mainly
known thanks to the well preserved remains of burials in contrast to the poorly investigated
settlements. Determination of the cultural groups was based on the main characteristics which
usually refer to the cemetery type (mounds vs. flat necropolises), shape of the grave
construction, treatment of bodily remains of the deceased (inhumation vs. cremation),
stylistic and typological analysis as well as distribution of grave goods, among which analysis
of pottery plays a significant role.
In this sense, tСe Čačak regТon draws our special attention. The Čačak regТon Тs
situated between two important geo-morphological units of the Central Balkans: the low hilly
regТon of ŠumaНТУa anН tСe mountaТnous regТon belonging to the Dinara massive. The
connective zone between these two units is made by the valley with the river West Morava
running through it. This low, wide and fertile valley, surrounded by hills and mountains,
connect the Dinara massive of the Western Balkans to the main transversal of the Central
Balkans – the Morava-Vardar valley (LУuštТna anН DmТtrovТć 2009, p. 92). Despite
continuous archaeological excavations for more than a half of a century, registered and
explored necropolises dominate when compared with settlements. Having in mind this fact as
well as the fact that the situation is similar in the wider territory of Western Serbia, we
focused on the analysis of the Bronze Age burial customs.
Some chronological remarks
Thanks to the solid chronology based on series of calibrated radio-carbon and
dendrochronological data, new chronological systems have been established for the Bronze
Age. Despite it, K. Kristiansen and T. Larsson (Kristiansen and Larsson 2005, p. 116) laid
particular stress on the fact that there were too few data, particularly from Eastern Europe and
Eastern Mediterranean. Fortunately, there are series of consistent data from Central Europe,
Western Europe, Northern Europe and Western Mediterranean (Kristiansen 1998, Fig. 13;
Kristiansen, Larsson 2005, p. 116).
Since there is no reliable series of radio-carbon or dendrochronological data for any of
the Bronze Age phases in the West Morava valley, we have to look for help in the regions

154
nearby, starting from South Pannonia. As for central Serbia, the site Ljuljaci, Milića Brdo,
near the town Kragujevac, one of the very few sites in Serbia with radio-carbon data,
provided us with data from only five Bronze Age samples out of which M. Bogdanović
( 1986, p. 70) finds only three of them reliable – one for the earlier Ljuljaci I
horizon (around 1950 BC) and two for the later Ljuljaci II horizon (between 1730 and
1690BC)( 1986, p. 70). On the other hand, F. Gogâltan cites data from four
samples from Ljuljaci: 3480±100BP, 3460±100BP, 3425±95BP and 3370±100BP (Gogâltan
1999, p. 308, Pl. 16), all of them being representative for the Middle Bronze Age, since he
placed the whole development of the Vatin culture, to which the horizons from Ljuljaci are
connected, in the mentioned period (cf. Gogâltan 2004).
Data given for the Early Bronze Age of the Hungarian part of the Carpathian Basin
(Bóna 1994; Ecsedy 1994) differ from the traditional absolute chronology, because they are
based on the calibrated radio-carbon data, indicating that the end of the Eneolithic should be
dated a couple of hundreds of years earlier than it was previously presumed. Consequently,
the development which led to the emergence of the Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin also
started earlier, surely in the second half of the 3rd millennium BC. The transition from the
Bronze to Iron Age is also presumed to be in the 9th-8th century BC, suggesting that the
Bronze Age might have lasted half a millennium longer then it had been thought. Duration of
each of the phases (early, middle, late) and diagnostic characteristics for chronological
determination are still problematic. Therefore T. Kovács (Kovács 1994, p. 22) introduced a
test assumption that in the Carpathian Basin the middle, developed phase of the Bronze Age
started around the 19-18th century BC. His opinion seems plausible for our territory, but until
the solid confirmation by some series of exact data, we can only speak in terms of early,
middle (developed, florescent) and late phase of the development of the Bronze Age.

A brief review of the Bronze Age cultural phenomena in the West Morava valley
The Early Bronze Age
During the Early Bronze Age in the territory surrounding the Čačak regТon, according
to the synthetic and still relevant and unrevised literature (GarašanТn 1983a; GarašanТn
1983b), tСe BelotТć–Bela Crkva culture developed on the west and Bubanj–Hum III culture
on the east. Specific features of the BelotТć–Bela Crkva culture, which developed in Western
Serbia, are on the first place represented by burying exclusively under mounds (Fig.1)(middle
size objects of ca. 15m in diameter), as well as by existence of a central grave with either an
inhumed deceased in crouched position or an incinerated one, and rare and mostly poor grave
goods, which mainly consisted of ceramic ware. In certain mounds stone constructions were
excavated as a part of the mound architecture or in the grave function (GarašanТn 1983a).
The Central Balkans are characterized by development of the Bubanj–Hum III
culture, which is marked, in contrast to the BelotТć–Bela Crkva culture, exclusively by
explored settlements and so far not a single grave ( anН 2012, p. 279;
GarašanТn 1983b). What characterises most this group are ceramic forms, especially the
beaker with slightly rounded profile with two handles that tie up the rim and the belly
(GarašanТn 1983b, p. 721)(Fig. 2/4-6). TСТs СorТгon, after M. StoУТć (StoУТć 1996, p. 248-250;
anН Ч ђ 2006, p. 28-29), is named the horizon of the beakers with two
handles, which, obviously, represent the most frequent and widely spread ceramic form. In
our opinion, this concept is outdated (cf. Bóna 1975 аТtС “kantСaros Мultures”) and hence
shoul be avoided.
As it was mentioned, the BelotТć–Bela Crkva culture extended in Western Serbia,
where it comprised several micro-regions. One of them, after M. GarašanТn (GarašanТn
1983a, p. 706), is Dragačevo anН Тts surrounНТngs, аСТМС belong to tСe mountaТnous part of
tСe Čačak regТon. One must have in mind that, when the monograph „PraТstorТУa

155
jugoslavenskТС гemalУa“ was written, a huge number of results of the excavated mounds was
not known to the author to the extent of our present knowledge. In this zone, out of 38
excavated mounds, 18 mounds with 19 graves, along with three cenotaphs without any trace
of bodily remains of the deceased belong to the Early Bronze Age. The burial rite includes
mounds exclusively, both inhumation and incineration of the deceased, who were always
(only one exception) placed in the center of the mound (DmТtrovТć 2013, Тn prТnt). TСe most
frequent grave construction, registered in 9 tumuli, is coffin-like construction (sarcophagus)
made of stone slabs for inhumed and incinerated deceased, as well as for cenotaphs (Fig. 2/1).
Other constructions usually represent particular examples without possibility to establish
some firm regularities (incinerated bones covered with earth, earth and stones, lying inside an
urn, or covered with a stone construction) (DmТtrovТć 2013, Тn prТnt). RegarНТng tСe grave
goods, as it was already stateН for BelotТć-Bela Crkva culture, they were usually poor and
mostly consisted of ceramic ware. Rarely were there some stone objects. Pottery is dominated
by the beaker with two handles, long cylindrical neck and spherically shaped belly (Fig. 2/2,
3). So far, there are five beakers of the kind, always associated with the sarcophagi graves. If
broader area of Western Serbia is observed, it must be emphasized that the largest
concentration of these burial features Тs МonfТrmeН Тn tСe Čačak regТon. It certainly highly
accentuates this area in comparison with the neighbouring regions.
Despite the fact that mounds are spread all over the Čačak regТon, they were not
simultaneously established and do not reveal the same ritual model, as the following research
is going to confirm. Minding the previously described examples from the mountainous parts
(Dragačevo anН Kablar), an interesting fact appeared that the only Early Bronze Age mound
from the West Morava valley originated from the site Ade in Prijevor, not far from the
mountain Kablar slopes. At the site, the registered burial ritual was significantly different.
Namely, the usual central place was reserved for the group of vessels probably in function of
grave offering, while burnt bodily remains were lying on the mound periphery (Fig. 3).
Characteristics of this grave deposit have strong parallels with the ceramic production of the
Bubanj–Hum III culture ( 2000, p. 10). On the other side, ceramic shapes from
the graves from Dragačevo anН Kablar, as in the necropolises further to the west and north
are closely tied with at least partially contemporaneous south Pannonian cultures (Makó,
Vinkovci, Somogyvár,…)(GarašanТn 1983a).
The Middle Bronze Age
Territory to the south from the rivers Sava and Danube in the middle phase of the
Bronze Age is marked by development of the so called Western Serbian variant of the Vatin
culture in the west and north–west, and the ParaćТn I Мulture in central Serbia (Fig. 4).
Mounds as burial constructions can be found in funerary practice in Western Serbia, with the
upper course of the West Morava within its borders. According to M. GarašanТn (cf.
GarašanТn 1983Н), this cultural phenomenon was named and widely accepted as Western
Serbian variant of the Vatin culture. It Тs Тmportant to empСasТгe tСat M. GarašanТn НТН not
recognize the Vatin culture – which is essentially a south Pannonian culture - in central
SerbТa. In GarašanТn’s opinion, the Vatin culture did not penetrate the Balkans deeper to the
south than the Danube valley, where on the right bank of the Danube he found some of the
elements of tСe Мulture, as Тn tСe Мase of tСe sТte VТnča-Belo brdo (cf. JovanovТć 1961;
1936). In Мontrast, tСe ParaćТn culture developed further to the south, while the elements
which can be connected with the Vatin culture occur in the area only sporadically, as
extremely rare pСenomena ( 1973, p. 321).
When dealing with regional specificities inside the Vatin culture, D. GarašanТn
( 1972, p. 18) stated, being guided by the ideas by Z. Vinski (Vinski 1958, p. 23)
about regional grouping of finds in the zone of Syrmia and eastern Slavonia (regional sub-
group of the Pannonian pottery or the Lovas type), that the Vatin culture spread its territory to

156
SвrmТa, аСere Тt аas representeН bв a speМТal varТant. AlreaНв Тn 1972, D. GarašanТn treats
separately the co called Western Serbian variant of the Vatin culture. The variant, despite
closely connected with the Vatin culture, should be given somewhat different ethnical
interpretation because of its specific funerary practice – burials under tumuli (
1972, p. 18; 1975, p. 47-48). However, the credit for separation and definition of
the Western Serbian variant of the Vatin culture went to M. GarašanТn ( 1973;
GarašanТn 1983Н). M. GarašanТn’s МСoТМe to separate tСe sТtes from west and central Serbia
not as a group or phase of the Vatin culture, but as a variant (the term variant is rarely in use
in Serbian archaeology), testifies about his intention to imply that it was a separate cultural
entity. Such a concept was much later explicitly stated by F. Gogâltan (Gogâltan 2004, p. 85-
86). What remains open is the question about the lowest common denominator in the material
Мulture (most obvТouslв Тn potterв stвle), tСe eбТstenМe of аСТМС аoulН keep tСe “varТant”
inside the frames of the Vatin culture.
As it was already mentioned, in central Serbia and thus in the lower Morava course
are excavated only the flat necropolises belonging to tСe ParaćТn I culture, which is known
from necropolises and settlements (Fig.4). These necropolises belong to the type known as
flat necropolises with urns, where some graves were under specific stone constructions. The
deceased were incinerated and burnt bones were placed in ceramic urns (GarašanТn 1983c;
PekovТć 2007)(Fig. 5). The grave inventory usually consisted of ceramic ware and very rare
metal objects, significantly fewer in number in comparison with the necropolises from
Western Serbia.
In tСe Čačak regТon at tСat time tumuli remained the main characteristic of the burial
customs. The necropolises are explored or registered in the same zones – Dragačevo anН
Kablar range on the one, and the river valley on the other side. If we compare the situation
from the Early Bronze Age, there is notably higher number of investigated graves and
mounds originating from the Middle Bronze Age horizon. 59 grave units buried in 19
mounds belong to this period (DmТtrovТć 2010a, p. 187). Burial customs in regard to
treatment of bodily remains are dual: incineration and inhumation of the deceased.
Inhumation was praМtТМeН onlв Тn tСe Dragačevo regТon anН Kablar range, but still there has
not been registered any inhumation from the West Morava valley (DmТtrovТć 2010a, p. 189).
The inhumed deceased are usually placed on the right or left side, in crouched position, and
often along with grave goods and various stone constructions almost always covered with
stone (DmТtrovТć 2010a, p. 189-190). Incineration prevails among the Middle Bronze Age
graves in the whole area. The burnt bones are usually placed in a recipient – a ceramic urn,
and often protected with different kinds of the grave constructions (DmТtrovТć 2010a, p. 190-
192). The grave inventory usually consisted of parts of the costume and bronze jewelry,
sometimes burnt along with the deceased, rarely ceramic vessels and weapons (DmТtrovТć
2010, p. 193)(Fig.6).
In accordance with these facts, it can be emphasized that the necropolises from the
upper part of the West Morava valley, аСТМС geograpСТМallв belong to tСe Čačak regТon,
show some particular features. Namely, the graves from this area were buried exclusively
under mounds. On the multilayered necropolis under mounds on the site Lugovi-Bent in
Mojsinje, the graves with incinerated deceased which were placed in the ceramic urns along
with the grave offerings that mostly consisted of ceramics, belonged to the Bronze Age
(NТkТtovТć, StoУТć, VasТć 2002)(Fig. 7/6-9). Stylistic and typological characteristics of the
ceramic ware show parallels with the contemporary cultures from the Danube basin – BelegТš
I ( 2002, p. 171-172) as well as do the ceramic forms from the other mound
necropolises from west Serbian territory. On the other side, certain details and forms are
МonneМteН аТtС sвnМСronous ParaćТn I Мulture (NТkТtovТć, StoУТć, VasТć 2002, p. 110). The
other characteristic of these graves, in comparison with the graves from the west, is extremely

157
small number of metal objects, while ceramics richly prevail. Some 20km down the river
course, a flat necropolis was excavated on the site Gorelo PolУe Тn MТločaУ, not far from the
town Kraljevo. It is a flat necropolis with incinerated graves with urns placed on the stone
slabs and covered with roughly made pots and pythoi of greater dimensions. The grave
inventory consisted exclusively of ceramic ware. Fragmented urns show some parallels with
the shapes and decoration typical for Hügelgräberkultur and the BelegТš СorТгon, аСТМС had
certain influence on the ceramic production in the Western Serbia ( 2010b, p. 34;
2002, p. 172). The other pottery shapes have parallels in the material from the nearby
settlements and necropolises from the lower river course, and belong to tСe ParaćТn Мultural
circle ( 2010b, p. 34-36). Similar situation is registered on the mound necropolis
Тn Dobrača Тn ŠumaНТУa regТon, where analogous mixture of the Danubian and central Serbian
elements in the pottery production was noticed (Fig. 7/1-5). Similarly to the Mojsinje and
MТločaУ neМropolТses, the absence of metal objects is noticed in contrast to the abundant
presence of pottery in function of grave offerings (GarašanТn M. and GarašanТn D. 1958;
PekovТć 2007, p. 55-56; 1998, p. 136-137). On the other side, M. StoУТć sees the
ceramic shapes from Dobrača as a part of a particular horizon named Mojsinje–Dobrača,
being the final (fourth) phase of the Vatin culture on the territory to the south from the
Danube and Sava rivers. This author also considers chronological sequence starting from
Mojsinje, while Dobrača Тs slТgСtlв вounger. Cultural successor of the horizon Mojsinje-
Dobrača Тs, after StoУТć, the ParaćТn Мulture ( 1998).
Speaking about M. StoУТć’s views of the Serbian Bronze Age, we find it extremely
difficult, almost impossible, to establish vertical stratigraphy and consequently so called
cultural stratigraphy on the basis of single-layer sites. The fact that there is no single site
illustrating the division of the Vatin culture in six evolution stages makes it impossible to
sort, with certainty, the mentioned single-layer sites in a continuous chronological sequence.
M. Peković (PekovТć 2007, p. 54) also criticises this methodological approach introduced by
StoУТć. Another thing is that the Middle Bronze Age is definitely not the period of great
cultural complexes, but rather of small political entities archaeologically recognized as
certain cultures or cultural groups (LУuštТna 2011, p. 109-110). Therefore we should perceive
the Vatin culture as a south Pannonian cultural phenomenon, having no potential to reach as
far as the central and southern Serbia, as proposed by M. Stojić (cf. 2004, p.193-215).
A. Bulatović and J. Stankovski share our opinion in their recent work. They warn that, since
only sporadic finds attributed to the developed phase of the Vatin culture were found in the
Morava valley (mostly in its northern part), they are not sufficient to claim existence of the
Vatin culture in the Morava valley. If one takes into consideration the specific ornamental
style of the Vatin culture to the north of the Sava and Danube, the presence of which was not
registered in any case in the South Morava basin ( anН 2012, p. 343),
the previous warning becomes even more important.
The Late Bronze Age
The period of the Late Bronze Age is marked by not so many excavated graves as it
was the case with the preceding phases (Fig. 8). This horizon is characterised by development
of the Urnfield phenomenon in Western Serbia and the ParaćТn II culture in the central part of
the country. Despite the small number of sites and findings in comparison with the previous
phases, there were enough elements to establish that in Western Serbia at the time main
cultural impetus came from the Urnfield cultural complex from the north, which was
reflected in the forms and decoration of the ceramic ware and metal findings (GarašanТn
1983e). Still, it seems that that traditional sepulchral form – mound burial - remained in use
even during this period. It points to the strong influences or symbiosis of the two strong
cultural elements (GarašanТn 1983e). In central Serbia during the same period the ParaćТn II
culture developed, representing tСe sequenМe of tСe ParaćТn I culture (Fig. 9/1-3). The

158
changes, which are noticed mainly on the ceramics, show influences from the Danube basin
(PekovТć 2007, p. 59-64).
The findings from the site Katovac in Baluga near Čačak sСoа agaТn tСe same
characteristics as the above mentioned archaeological sites from the river valley (Fig. 9/4-7).
The presumed grave deposit from Baluga consisted of seven vessels (one fragmented). The
stylistic-typological characteristics show parallels both in the contemporary mid-Danubian
BelegТš II culture, and Тn tСe ParaćТn II culture in the east and south-east. A mound near the
location of this finding might indicate a grave under the mound from which the pottery
deposit came from, since this is the main attribute of the burial practice in the region over the
last millennia BC. Another characteristic of the Late Bronze Age is an increasing number of
settlements, mostly hillforts.
Conclusion
Our research revealed that the West Morava valley, in its northern course belonging to
tСe Čačak regТon, played an important role as a transitional territory during the Bronze Age.
Distribution of the necropolises of the Early Bronze Age clearly shows concentration
of the mounds in the zones to the west from the river West Morava, while the only exception
represents the mound on the site Ade in Prijevor. Further to the east, there are neither
registered nor excavated necropolises. In Kablar anН espeМТallв Dragačevo regТon sТgnТfТМant
concentration of graves in stone coffins, often along with the double handled beakers, is
noticed. It elevates this region on the dominant position in Serbia and even аТНer (DmТtrovТć
2013). Burying under mounds makes a part of autochthonous tradition, while some changes
in the ritual patterns and ceramics forms represent adoption of foreign style and not the result
of etСnТМal movements ( 2000, p. 11). On the other hand, now it is doubtless that
the northern part of the West Morava valley within tСe Čačak regТon makes a border zone
between two bigger cultural manifestations of the Early Bronze Age in the Central Balkans -
BelotТć–Bela Crkva and Bubanj–Hum III.
During the Middle Bronze Age it appears that the West Morava valley and its
surroundings played the same role. As it was indicated by the analyzed material from
MoУsТnУe, MТločaУ anН Dobrača neМropolТses, it was possible to establish a certain zone with
mixed material, characteristic for the so called Western Serbian variant of the Vatin culture
on the one side (western Serbia) and the ParaćТn I Мulture on tСe otСer (Мentral, eastern anН
southern Serbia).
The Late Bronze Age represents a period with not as many investigated sites as the
previous ones, but even operating with smaller numbers, there was a possibility to establish a
basic picture. A strong influence from the Danube cultural circle (Urnfield complex) is
notable on the material. It is most obvious in use of the fluted ornament and polishing of the
pottery. As in the previous phases, it is the strong cultural influence on the autochthonous
base, which strongly kept its funerary models. It means that even during the Late Bronze
Age, the same part of the West Morava valley can be marked as transitional, having various
characteristics in the material reflecting strong influences from nearby cultural centers.
Sharply defined borders between different cultural groups are rarely testified in
prehistoric archaeology. In most of the cases the so called transitional zones exist, where
different influences meet and mix to some extent, thereby creating the specific feature
integrating various elements. It is obvious that the West Morava valley downstream from the
Ovčar-Kablar gorge to the Kraljevo narrowing represents indeed transitional territory
between already defined cultural groups which existed in the wider territory of Serbia to the
south of the rivers Sava and Danube. It can be comprehended as a contact zone between
cultural groups during the entire development of the Bronze Age. Particular significance of
this region lasts even during the next millennia. Regarding burial customs, the same role of
this region is noticed during the Iron Age (DmitrovТć anН LУuštТna 2008). After D. SreУovТć

159
( 1979, p. 83), the funerary customs were the basis for determining the border
between Palaeo-Balkanic tribes Dardanians and Triballoi along the line Western – Southern
Morava. This concept is generally followed in the recent works by R. Vasić (cf. Vasić 2004a;
Vasić 2004b), at least to the extent of shaping territorial spread of the mentioned Palaeo-
Balkanic ethnic groups.

Bibliography

а ић, . 1986. . .
,К .
Bóna, I. 1975. Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südöstliche Beziehungen.
Archaeologia Hungarica, series nova IL. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
Bóna, I. 1994. Les cultures des tells de l'age du bronze en Hongrie, p. 9-41. In: La bel age du
bronze en Hongrie (Eds. J.-P. Guillaumet, J.-P. Thevenot). Centre Europeen Н’ArМСeologТe,
Mont Beuvray, Dijon.
Bray, W., Trump, D. 1982. The Penguin Dictionary of Archaeology. Penguin Books,
London.
а ић, ., а и, Ј. 2012.
. , . . , ,К .
Dmitrović, K. 2010a. Burial customs during the Middle Bronze Age in the Northern Part of
West Morava Valley, Serbia, p. 187-196. In: The Thracians and Their Neigbours in Antiquity.
Studia in honorem Valerii Sîrbu (EН. I.CănНea). Muгeul BrăТleТ, EНТtura Istros, Brăila.
и ић, . 2010b.
, (К ) 11, p. 31-40.
DmТtrovТć, K. 2013. BuriКl Мustoms НurinР tСe EКrlв Bronгe AРe in tСe ČКčКk reРion, Аest
Serbia, Istros XIX - In print.
DmТtrovТć, K., LjuštТnК, M. 2008. FunerКrв prКМtiМes in tСe reРion oП ČКčКk НurinР tСe
Iron Age, p. 85-108. In: Funerary practices in central and Eastern Europe (10th c.B.C. – 3rd
c.A.D) (Ed. V. Sîrbu anН R. ŞtefănesМu), ProМeeНТngs of tСe 10th International Colloquium of
Funerarв ArМСaeologв Тn TulМea. BrăТla – Braşov.
Ecsedy, I. 1994. The Emergence of the Bronze Age in Hungary, p. 17-21. In: Treasures of the
Hungarian Bronze Age: Catalogue to the Temporary Exhibition of the Hungarian National
Museum, September 20–December 31, 1994 (Ed. T. Kovács). Hungarian National Museum,
Budapest.
а аша и , . 1972. . , .
а аша и , . 1975.
, ( ) VII, p. 43-53.
а аша и , . 1973. . ,
.
GКrКšКnТn, M. 1983a. GrupК Belotić-Bela Crkva, p. 705-718. In: Praistorija jugoslavenskih
zemalja IV. Bronzano doba (Ed. A. Benac). Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i
HerМegovТne, Centar гa balkanološka ТspТtТvanУa, Sarajevo.
GКrКšКnТn, M. 1983b. Grupa Bubanj–Hum III, p. 719-722. In: Praistorija jugoslavenskih
zemalja IV. Bronzano doba (Ed. A. Benac). Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i
HerМegovТne, Centar гa balkanološka ТspТtТvanУa, SaraУevo.
GКrКšКnТn, M. 1983М. ЈКrКćinskК РrupК, p. 727-735. In: Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja
IV. Bronzano doba (Ed. A. Benac). Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine,
Centar za balkanološka ТspТtТvanУa, SaraУevo.

160
GКrКšКnТn, M. 1983Н. Zapadnosrpska varijanta vatinske grupe, p. 736-753. In: Praistorija
jugoslavenskih zemalja IV. Bronzano doba (Ed. A. Benac). Akademija nauka i umjetnosti
Bosne Т HerМegovТne, Centar гa balkanološka ispitivanja, Sarajevo.
GКrКšКnТn, M. 1983e. Period polja sa urnama u zapadnoj Srbiji, p. 779-785. In: Praistorija
jugoslavenskih zemalja IV. Bronzano doba (Ed. A. Benac). Akademija nauka i umjetnosti
Bosne Т HerМegovТne, Centar гa balkanološka ТspТtТvanУa, Sarajevo.
GКrКšКnТn M., GКrКšКnТn D. 1958. SцpulМres Нe l’сРe Нes metКuб en SerЛie. Inventaria
Archaeologica, Jugoslavija, Fascicule 2. Rudolf Habelt Verlag, Bonn.
Gogâltan, F. 1999. Bronгul timpuriu şi mijloМiu în BКnКtul romсnesМ şi pe Мursul inПerior Кl
Mureşului. Cronologia şi descoperirile de metal. Editura Orizonturi Universitare, TТmТşoara.
Gogâltan, F. 2004. Bronгul mijloМiu în BКnКt. Opinii privinР Рrupul Corneşti-Crvenka, p.
79-153. In: FestsМСriПt Пјr Florin MeНeleţ гum 60. GeЛurstКР. BiЛliotСeМa Historica et
Archaeologica Banatica XXXII (EНs. P. Rogoгea, V. CeНТМa). EНТtura MТrton, TТmТşoara.
Jones, A. 2004. Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
JovКnovТć, B. 1961. Pojava keramike vatinskog tipa na vinčКnskom nКselju. Vesnik
muzejsko-konгervatorskog Нruštva (Beograd) 1-2, p. 5-14.
Kovács, T. 1994. The Middle Bronze Age: Florescence, p. 22-29. In: Treasures of the
Hungarian Bronze Age: Catalogue to the Temporary Exhibition of the Hungarian National
Museum, September 20–December 31, 1994 (Ed. T. Kovács). Hungarian National Museum,
Budapest.
Kristiansen, K. 1998. Europe before History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kristiansen, K. 2004. An Essay on Material Culture - Some Concluding Reflections, p. 259-
278. In: Material Culture and Other Things. Post-disciplinary Studies in the 21st Century
(Eds. F. Fahlander, T. Oestigaard). Department of Archaeology, University of Gothenburg,
Göteborg.
Kristiansen, K., Larsson, T. B. 2005. The Rise of Bronze Age Society: Travels,
Transmissions and Transformations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
LjuštТnК, M. 2011. Well Defined or Taken for Granted - the Bronze Age Vatin Culture a
Century after, p. 103-113. In: Archaeology: making of and practice. Studies in honor of
MirМeК BКЛeş Кt Сis 70tС КnniversКrв (eНs. D. Măgureanu, D. MănНesМu, S. MateТ). Institutul
Нe ArСeologТe "VasТle Pсrvan" BuМureştТ, EНТtura OrНessos Muгeul JuНeţean Argeş, PТteştТ.
LjuštТnК, M., DmТtrovТć, K. 2009. Landmarks of Memory – Notes on Iron Age Tumuli
TopoРrКpСв in ČКčКk ReРion, SerЛiК, p. 91-101. In: Mousaios IX - the Necropolises and the
Environment (1st mill. BC)(Eds. V. Sîrbu, D. Ciobanu). Proceedings of the 11th International
ColloquТum of Funerarв ArМСaeologв, Buгău – Romania 2009, Buгău – BrăТla.
и и ић, ., 2000. ,
(Ч ) XXX, p. 5-14.
NТkТtovТć, L., StojТć, M., VКsТć, R. 2002. Mojsinje – a Bronze and Iron Age Mound
Necropolis. National Museum Čačak, ArМСaeologТМal InstТtute BelgraНe, Čačak.
PekovТć, M. 2007. ЈКrКćinskК kulturnК РrupК. ГaНužbТna AnНreУevТć. BeograН.
Renfrew, C., Bahn, P. 2004. Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. Thames and
Hudson, London.
Rice, P. M. 2005. Pottery Analysis – a Sourcebook. The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, London.
ј ић, . 1979. o
, p. 79-83. In:
И (Ed. . ), , (10-12. 5. 1976.), .

161
StojТć, M. 1996. Le Bassin de la Morava a l'age de bronze et a la periode de transition de
l'age de bronze a celui de fer, p. 133-146. In: The Yugoslav Danube Basin and the
Neighbouring Regions in the 2nd Millennium B. C. (EН. N. TasТć). SerbТan AМaНemв of
Sciences and Arts, Institute for Balkan Studies, Belgrade, VršaМ.
јић, , 1998.
: – , p.133-146. In:
(Ed. . ).
К 27.-29. 1997, К .
јић, . 2004. ,
, . ., LIII-LIV ( ), p. 193-215.
а ић, . 2002. , p. 168-184. In:
, . – .
, .
а ић, . 1936. IV.
К Ј , .
Vasić, R. 2004a. Die Eisenzeit im Zentralbalkan – chronologische und ethnische Fragen, p.
11-32. In: Silber der Illyrer und Kelten in Zentralbalkan (Ed. T. Bader). Keltenmuseum
Hochdor/Enz, Eberdingen.
Vasić, R. 2004Л. Gli Autariati, la tribù illirica più grande e più forte, nella storia e
nell’КrМСeoloРiК, p. 11-29. In: Convegno Internazionale di Studi: GlТ IllТrТ e L’ItalТa (ed. M.
Buora). Fondazione Cassamarca Treviso, 16 ottobre 2004, Treviso.
Vinski, Z. 1958. Brončanodobne ostave Lovas i Vukovar, Vjesnik Arheološkog muгeУa u
Zagrebu 1, p.1-34.

KatarТna DmТtrovТć
National Museum
Cara Dušana 1, 32000 Čačak, SerbТa
E-mail: katarina.dmitrovic@gmail.com

Marija LjuštТna
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Archaeology
ČТka-Ljubina 18-20, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
E-mail: mljustin@f.bg.ac.rs

162
Figure 1 – Map of Serbia with the Early Bronze Age necropolises in central Serbia
Tumular necropolises are marked by semicircles.
1 – Kozjak; 2 - Tolisavac; 3, 4 – Belotić (sites Šumar and Bandera); 5 – Žabari; 6 – Ribaševina;
7 – Vranjani; 8 - Drežnik; 9, 10 – Jančići (sites Veliko Polje and Dubac); 11 – Prijevor; 12 – Pilatovići; 13 – Negrišori; 14
- Krstac; 15 – Donja Kravarica; 16-19 – Guča (sites Grotnica, Ornica, Ošljevac and Rajića brdo) ; 20, 21 – Lučani (sites
Suva Česma and Kruševlje); 22 Mrčajevci; 23, 24 – Poblaćnica river valley.

163
Figure 2 - Early Bronze Age in the West Morava valley
1-3 - Dučalovići, site Ruja (photo-documentation: National Museum Čačak): Belotić – Bela Crkva culture.
4-6 - Novo Selo, site Bubanj (after Гарашанин, Ђурић 1983): Bubanj Hum III culture.

164
Figure 3 - Early Bronze Age: cultural manifestations with mixed characteristics, from West Morava valley
1 - Prijevor, site Ade (after Nikitović 2000)
2, 3 - Prijevor, site Ade, ceramic vessels from the center of the mound (photo-documentation: National Museum
Čačak).

165
Figure 4 – Map of Serbia with the Middle Bronze Age necropolises in central Serbia
Tumular necropolises are marked by semicircles, flat necropolises – by horizontal lines.
1 – Kozjak; 2 – Joševa; 3 – Lipnica; 4 – Slatina; 5 – Brezovica; 6 - Jovin Breg; 7, 8 - Belotić (sites Šumar and Bandera);
9 – Klinci; 10 - Zarube; 11 – Robaje; 12 – Bukovačko Polje; 13 – Višesava; 14 – Gubin Do; 15 – Duškovci; 16 –
Vranjani; 17 – Duškovac; 18, 19 – Jančići (sites Veliko Polje, Dubac and Ravnine); 20 – Prijevor; 21 – Arilje; 22 –
Višovina; 23 - Pilatovići;
24 – Lučani (Suva Česma and Kruševlje); 25 – Dučalovići; 26 – Guča (sites Grotnica and Ošljevac); 27 – Donja
Kravarica; 28. - Krstac; 29 - Kotraža; 30 – Drenova; 31 – Sedobro;
32 – Mojsinje; 33 – Dobrača; 34 – Miločaj; 35 – Makrešani; 36 – Niš; 37 – Rutevac; 38 – Stalać; 39 – Obrež; 40, 41 –
Paraćin (sites Gloždak and Striža); 42,43 – Despotovac (sites Plažane and Dvorište); 44 – Rajkinac.

166
Figure 5 - Middle Bronze Age: Paraćin culture
1, 3, 4 – Ceramic vessels from Obrež (after Стојић and Чађеновић 2006);
2, 5, 6 – Ceramic vessels from Maćija (after Стојић and Чађеновић 2006).

167
Figure 6 - Middle Bronze Age: Western Serbian variant of Vatin culture
1-5 - Jančići, site Dubac: 1 - grave 10 from mound 1 in situ; 2 - urn from grave 10; 3-5 - typical metal findings from the
graves. 6. Guča, site Grotnica: bronze bracelets (photo-documentation: National Museum Čačak).

168
Figure 7 - Middle Bronze Age: cultural manifestations with mixed characteristics
1-5 - Dobrača, site Umke (after Garašanin M. and Garašanin D. 1958).
6-9 - Mojsinje, site Lugovi, Bent (after Nikitović, Stojić and Vasić 2002).

169
Figure 8 – Map of Serbia with the Late Bronze Age necropolises in central Serbia
Tumular necropolises are marked by semicircles, flat necropolises – by horizontal lines.
1 – Brezovica; 2 – Belotić; 3 – Bastav; 4 – Mrčići; 5 - Barice; 6 – Turica; 7 – Kotraža; 8 – Baluga; 9 – Rutevac; 10 –
Paraćin; 11 – Ćuprija; 12 – Rajkinac; 13 – Donje Štiplje.

170
Figure 9 - Late Bronze Age in the West Morava valley
1-3 - Paraćin, site Gloždak (after Garašanin 1983c): ceramic shapes belonging to the Paraćin II culture
4-7 - Baluga, site Katovac: material with mixed characteristics, from West Morava valley (photo-documentation:
National Museum Čačak).

171